I think Astreja meant something along the lines that she couldn't find the words to to adequately express feelings other than disgust and revulsion after reading about those actions. Nor, frankly, can I. Not that I anticipate that to be an unusual reaction amongst caring and sentient individuals.

Exactly what I meant. I felt anger, helplessness, and that crazy buzzing feeling you get when you know you have to do something but don't know if you can do anything at all.

On the 6 o'clock news we get the sanitized version of the latest inquest into the atrocities, then give ourselves a big Canadian pat on the back for being kinder, gentler, more enlightened, and all that rot. Instead of starting one big war that rouses people to fight for the defenders, we wage a million small wars that take generations to uncover, and leave the deepest scars where they can't even be seen. If we didn't know then what was going on then, why should we think we know any better now? What's happening right now under our very noses, in our own home towns, that only our grandchildren's generation will uncover?

While it is certainly admirable that you care deeply about these things (as do I), I have yet to see an atheist explain why "walking bags of chemicals" deserve more respect than other species. Everything is just bags of chemicals. Do people cry when a raindrop evaporates?

I think Astreja meant something along the lines that she couldn't find the words to to adequately express feelings other than disgust and revulsion after reading about those actions. Nor, frankly, can I. Not that I anticipate that to be an unusual reaction amongst caring and sentient individuals.

Exactly what I meant. I felt anger, helplessness, and that crazy buzzing feeling you get when you know you have to do something but don't know if you can do anything at all.

On the 6 o'clock news we get the sanitized version of the latest inquest into the atrocities, then give ourselves a big Canadian pat on the back for being kinder, gentler, more enlightened, and all that rot. Instead of starting one big war that rouses people to fight for the defenders, we wage a million small wars that take generations to uncover, and leave the deepest scars where they can't even be seen. If we didn't know then what was going on then, why should we think we know any better now? What's happening right now under our very noses, in our own home towns, that only our grandchildren's generation will uncover?

While it is certainly admirable that you care deeply about these things (as do I), I have yet to see an atheist explain why "walking bags of chemicals" deserve more respect than other species. Everything is just bags of chemicals. Do people cry when a raindrop evaporates?

It's because of evolution and selective forces.

Natural selection guarantees that members of a species will almost always want to protect/preserve that species. that's why you see things like the maternal instinct in mammals. it's why young things tend to look cuter--it fosters an immediate reaction in wanting to protect that youngster. it's why we have social contracts and altruism and concepts like that--to preserve the species.

Of course, we've outsmarted natural selection with things that give us the desire to kill each other...

Logged

It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today. I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.~jdawg70

In an atheistic world, it would be OK to kill your parents to get the money though. Money would get you places in life. You parents being alive wouldn't get you anywhere.

What you're referring to is amoral[1], not atheistic[2]. I realize this is a linguistic distinction and thus might be lost on you, but you really shouldn't conflate the two. Someone can be totally non-religious and yet still ave a strong moral code, whereas someone else can be the most devout theist and be totally amoral. By the way, that pretty much negates your point about objective morality. If it existed, then it would apply to everyone, and there would be no such thing as being amoral.

Quote from: skeptic54768

But since Christians don't care about money and material things, we wouldn't even dream of the idea.

Yet literally millions of Christians do care about money and material things. In fact, the vast majority do. The difference is, they're not amoral, so they're not willing to do anything in order to get money and material things. That aside, not caring about money and material things is not what makes one a Christian. Worshiping Jesus is what makes one a Christian, just as not worshiping (or believing in) any god is what makes one an atheist.

Quote from: skeptic54768

But someone who thought money was all you needed to be successful? Now that would be scary.

Indeed, psychopaths (those who essentially don't have morality) can be pretty scary. However, that has nothing to do with atheists, except atheists who are also psychopaths - far rarer than either alone.

God wrote the law on our hearts. No surprise there. Lots of people are Christians without even realizing it. Just like how some people are non-Christians without even realizing it (the murderous ones).

This makes no sense at all when you actually think about it. If your god wrote the law on human hearts, that means that he failed with a noticeable percentage of the population. Not only that, but a notable percentage of the ones he succeeded with have essentially disavowed him - another failure. That's assuming your initial assumption is correct; personally, I think it's more likely that you're engaging in post hoc reasoning, trying to rationalize away inconsistencies in your belief (and creating more as a side-effect of that process).

Of course not. But the fact remains you guys are borrowing from Christianity by not doing it.

Nope. You're conflating your religious belief and morality again. The fact of the matter is that morality is independent of religious belief, or lack thereof. That's why you have atheists who hold to morals and Christians who are amoral, not this post hoc "God wrote the law on our hearts" business.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Some people certainly care all about money and would kill their parents for it. This is based on the "money is everything" mentality.

But such people are properly referred to as amoral, not atheistic.

Quote from: skeptic54768

There is no objective reason for an atheist to get mad if someone does it. The best they can say is, "Well, you have a different view than I do."

Now you're confusing atheism with moral relativity. This is no more valid than confusing it with amorality, not to mention that you're contradicting yourself.

Quote from: skeptic54768

Only Christianity teaches us to love one another. Atheism teaches us nothing. Every man for himself.

Given that you don't have very much information on other religions, and given how consistently badly off you are on atheism, why should anyone believe you that "only Christianity teaches us to love one another"? You see, you're continuing to make the mistake of conflating your religious beliefs with morality, which doesn't really work. What religion does - any religion - is give people a set of moral rules to follow, but this is not the same as saying that morality itself comes from religion. If morality did not already exist in people then trying to impose it with religious beliefs wouldn't work. That, I'm sure, is why you say that your god wrote his law on our hearts, but if that were the case, why not simply write the religion on our hearts as well? If every human being - or most of us, anyway - instinctively had Christian beliefs that had to be overcome before they could turn to some other religion[3], then it would make the case for your god quite a bit more convincing.

Instead, you see a pattern where children almost always initially take on the religion of their family and society (to a lesser degree). You seldom - almost never, as in it's vanishingly rare - see children bucking their parents' beliefs until they've gotten old enough to think about it, and most often not for a long while even then. In short, your god did not write the religion he favored on human hearts, so why should we believe that he wrote the morality he favored on human hearts either?

Pre-Columbus Indians were not murderous, rampaging hordes. They had moral systems that we can easily call admirable. Note that there is no record whatsoever of large armies of Indians running all over the prairies slaughtering each other over religious beliefs or anything else. They certainly fought locally, but at nowhere near the level of European and Asian cultures. The first Europeans arriving in what is now laughed at the Indians because they were so frickin' clean. And the natives generously offered food and other much needed gifts to the Europeans, at least until the Europeans started shooting and stuff.

The Spanish were able to conquer the Aztecs with a tiny army, because the Aztecs had never been to war. They didn't know how to fight.

The first Europeans traveling up the Mississippi found farms along the river for hundreds of miles, and smiling, generous Indians.

Yet they had never been exposed to Christianity.

How is that possible if you say that all morals come from your religion. How could they possibly have been better human beings that Christians without being exposed to your ideals?

Uh.. maybe I have your post a bit confused. You said that the natives of the Americas didn’t slaughter each other over religious beliefs or anything else, but you then mention the Aztecs in the same post. If there is anything the Aztec empire was known for it was human sacrifice. It is unfortunate that when people hear the word Aztec they think of human sacrifice but there is a reason for that. It is possible that 20,000 people were sacrificed in a year. http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-sacrifice.htmlThose sacrificed were often citizens of rival cities that participated in a xochiyaoyotl (a flower war.. I dunno) a battle would be fought not over territory or resources but just sacrifices for the gods who demanded blood. Lots of blood. And the Aztecs knew a thing or two about fighting. At 17 an Aztec boy could begin military style training to prepare him to capture enemies to be sacrificed. Perhaps you have heard of the Jaguar warriors? A solider could not become a Jaguar until he had captured at least 4 prisoners.Ultimately the when the Spanish arrived the Aztec brought a maquahuiti and atlatl to a gun fight though. Small pox was another thing the Spanish unknowingly brought with them to conquer the Americas. Also as I mentioned before 20,000 sacrifices a year is a lot of people. That’s 20,000 some soldiers a year. So I don’t think it is fair to say that pre Columbus Native Americans didn’t slaughter each other over religion. Maybe not in North America but down south they were all about it.

Skeptic, I was going to go digging for more quotations about love from sources even earlier than the ones I've already given, but now I see that it's a futile exercise. You're practicing a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: If something good comes from a non-Christian source, you cross out that source and write in "Jesus" in crayon. Conversely, if something bad comes from a Christian source you play the No True Scotsman card by claiming the source doesn't "really" represent Christianity as you understand it.

If you're going to define "Christian" as "stuff Skeptic likes," and lump everything you don't like under atheism, paganism or "OMG Demons!!!111!!!one!!111" there's simply no point in either of us using terms like Christian or atheist.

Let's talk instead this dichotomy you've created regarding the source of human morality and emotions: Either it's "bag of chemicals" or it's "Goddidit."

Now consider, please, that humanity on the whole is more good than bad, with increasing lifespans and an ever-increasing knowledge base. That is in line with evolution, both genetic and cultural, as traits such as cooperative behaviours and intelligence translate into success in today's world. There's also a clear correlation between education and quality of life, and also between recognition of women's rights and quality of life. These latter two are cultural rather than genetic, but I think it's safe to say that they're not particularly religious either.

Contrast that with your "God has written on all our hearts" hypothesis. Don't you think that something coming from a god should work a bit more consistently? Traits like psychopathy (in which someone is pathologically devoid of empathy) simply should not exist under your scheme.

Shouldn't the people who murder their parents for money need psychiatric help?

Why would I? I would never do such a thing.

Unless of course you believed that your God told you to (like Abraham, the Israelites, Samuel, or Jepahthah) and then you would do it, right? This is b/c you've already admitted that when it comes to morality is human behavior you do not trust your own reasoning you just follow orders from what you think is "the word of God" (in whatever fashion). I'm NOT talking here about demon trickery (as you are likely to assume it would be). I'm talking about you actually believing that God said to do it (which is not at all inconsistent with your God's alleged 'nature'). Lots of people throughout history have believed this and acted upon their beliefs and you are in no position to judge whether their interpretation of their personal 'revelation' was correct or not (since anyone can cherry pick those verses from that book in whichever fashion they like - just as you do). The inherent problem (which you refuse to see) is that book itself.

but you are proving MY point, albeit unintentionally. God wrote His law on their hearts. It's no shock they sound similar to Christianity.

Ah, so you admit then that this God you believe in 'wrote his law' on our hearts in direct contradiction to his own law and 'nature'? You've already admitted that God can violate his own laws. So these "laws" are not really laws, are they? If they were, then God would not violate them either - but he does according to your theology.

but you are proving MY point, albeit unintentionally. God wrote His law on their hearts. It's no shock they sound similar to Christianity.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, all three of the philosophies that I cited -- Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism -- predate Christianity by a minimum of 500 years. (Buddhism and Daoism are contemporaries, circa 500 BCE; Hinduism is considerably older.)

Perhaps My elder sister, the Bodhisattva Guan Shi Yin, is the One with the cardiac stencil and marking pen. Or perhaps it's the Dao itself, personified as the Great Unity. Or Vishnu, perhaps -- Definitely a caring chap. Why do you think it's your god?

Only Christianity teaches us to love one another. Atheism teaches us nothing. Every man for himself.

The quotes above predate Christianity. What does that have to do with when you claim Genesis was written?

You and Gzusfreak have a real problem keeping your timelines straight with regards to your arguments.

Logged

“In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind, old men as guides.” Heinrich Heine

but you are proving MY point, albeit unintentionally. God wrote His law on their hearts. It's no shock they sound similar to Christianity.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, all three of the philosophies that I cited -- Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism -- predate Christianity by a minimum of 500 years. (Buddhism and Daoism are contemporaries, circa 500 BCE; Hinduism is considerably older.)

Perhaps My elder sister, the Bodhisattva Guan Shi Yin, is the One with the cardiac stencil and marking pen. Or perhaps it's the Dao itself, personified as the Great Unity. Or Vishnu, perhaps -- Definitely a caring chap. Why do you think it's your god?

The Book of Genesis was written in 900 B.C.

Just wondering how the date 900 B.C. was arrived at for the composition of Genesis.

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

but you are proving MY point, albeit unintentionally. God wrote His law on their hearts. It's no shock they sound similar to Christianity.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, all three of the philosophies that I cited -- Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism -- predate Christianity by a minimum of 500 years. (Buddhism and Daoism are contemporaries, circa 500 BCE; Hinduism is considerably older.)

Perhaps My elder sister, the Bodhisattva Guan Shi Yin, is the One with the cardiac stencil and marking pen. Or perhaps it's the Dao itself, personified as the Great Unity. Or Vishnu, perhaps -- Definitely a caring chap. Why do you think it's your god?

The Book of Genesis was written in 900 B.C.

Just wondering how the date 900 B.C. was arrived at for the composition of Genesis.

While it is certainly admirable that you care deeply about these things (as do I), I have yet to see an atheist explain why "walking bags of chemicals" deserve more respect than other species. Everything is just bags of chemicals. Do people cry when a raindrop evaporates?

Skeptic,

Your discussons on these forums (if you've been honest with your replies and comments) reveal a grandiose type delusional disorder on the borderline of a narcissistic personality disorder.

You may want to investigate the symptoms and how they affect you. It's okay, I myself suffer from bipolar disorder but because I'm aware of it, I can overcome the feelings/emotions and recognize the highs and lows and move past the symptoms. I became aware of this disorder and read up on it since this disorder runs in my family (my father had it and so does his brothers and sisters and their mother). Some people need medication to help them get past the low points (my uncle is one of those people).

Once you understand more about your own mental state, you can accomplish a lot.

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

All I am doing is preaching pure love and tolerance and this is a distortion of my mind?

All I asked for is to show me Jesus commanding people to kill whoever and whenever they want. That has not been done yet. So, why do you continue to side with Columbus & friends instead of what Jesus ACTUALLY said?

I do not want to sound insulting, but even a braindead person can see Jesus never commanded cold-blooded murder at will.

If we went back in time, this would have a convo with Columbus would go:

Me: it doesn't say to kill at will in the bible.Columbus: You think I give a crap? I'm just using the name of Jesus as an excuse. I don't care what Jesus actually says.

How do you know what Jesus actually said though?

You're just assuming everyone, who claims to be a Christian despite doing things you don't like. is not actually a Christian.

John 1:9-11"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works."

John 3:16-19“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil."

John 5:29"And come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

Romans 6:23"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Romans 13:1-4"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

There are 5 passages from the New Testament in which someone could interpret that killing nonbelievers is God's work.

To me it seems like you're not even a Christian and you don't even know it. No offense is meant. I thought I was Christian for years yet I wasn't. I read the old testament and parts of the new when I was a teenager and realized it was a load of crap. Through my early 20's I thought that the message from Jesus was still good, but that humans screwed it up. I convinced myself that I was an actual Christian and mostly every other Christian was getting it wrong. I've now realized that all I was doing was picking and choosing what I liked. If God existed, how could God be associated in anyway with a book that was a load of crap where I had to pick and choose what I liked.

The truth is skeptic, you are in a religion of one, yourself. You are the only person who follows your religion. Every other Christian follows their own personalized version of Christianity (just like you).

EDIT: Spelling.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 05:14:54 PM by SevenPatch »

Logged

"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

In an atheistic world, it would be OK to kill your parents to get the money though. Money would get you places in life. You parents being alive wouldn't get you anywhere.

But since Christians don't care about money and material things, we wouldn't even dream of the idea.

But someone who thought money was all you needed to be successful? Now that would be scary.

Yeah. No Christians interested in MONEY. Well. Except for the prosperity gospel guys:

Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success)[A] is a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one's material wealth. Based on non-traditional interpretations of the Bible, often with emphasis on the Book of Malachi, the doctrine views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver his promises of security and prosperity. Confessing these promises to be true is perceived as an act of faith, which God will honor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

And the Tea Party guys. And the Americans for Prosperity:

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process. AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels. AFP grassroots activists advocate for public policies that champion the principles of entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint. To that end, AFP supports:•Cutting taxes and government spending in order to halt the encroachment of government in the economic lives of citizens by fighting proposed tax increases and pointing out evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse.•Removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship and opportunity by sparking citizen involvement early in the regulatory process in order to reduce red tape.•Restoring fairness to our judicial system.

Or how about all the babies that God gets killed? Certainly not pro life.

We've been over this. God allows everyone to die. Is God evil for allowing everyone to die?

I shall be dying on my own terms, thank you. I don't need your fake god to walk me through the process. Nor do I need his permission.

I don't suppose you have any idea how boring it is to keep hearing about your god, who could do anything if he wanted, but who does nothing, except when you need to think you're proving a point. Then he comes in handy for you. Except he isn't real, which makes you sound quite silly.

Or how about all the babies that God gets killed? Certainly not pro life.

We've been over this. God allows everyone to die. Is God evil for allowing everyone to die?

I shall be dying on my own terms, thank you. I don't need your fake god to walk me through the process. Nor do I need his permission.

I don't suppose you have any idea how boring it is to keep hearing about your god, who could do anything if he wanted, but who does nothing, except when you need to think you're proving a point. Then he comes in handy for you. Except he isn't real, which makes you sound quite silly.

Not that we're laughing, though...

Please tell me how you know that God is doing nothing.

I see God doing things every single day of my life.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Standing by and watching while murder takes place is not just allowing everyone to die (naturally). Boy you tell yourself a whole lotta BS don't you.

Since death is not the end and God restores all life, He is not obligated to stop murder.

Did God ever say that He would stop everything bad in the fallen world? No, not until Heaven. You're arguing a strawman.

What a convenient rationalization (and yet weak attempt) to keep believing it's 'moral' for your alleged God to refuse to intervene when a child is being raped or murdered (for example). So you think such a thing is moral for your alleged 'God' and yet it's immoral if YOU refused to step in and stop such heinous acts. Utter hypocrisy. You are more moral than your SPAG god that you worship inside you're head and you just haven't realized it yet.

On a second note, I don't believe "God" (whatever the heck that word means) ever 'did' anything, b/c I reject your notion of such a thing. But since you believe your theology regarding this 'thing', your arguments are irrational. You can't have it both ways. Either the terms "love" and "moral" actually have useful meaning (at which case your God is not loving/moral) or they are just a tautology for you to keep your theology (at which case those terms are meaningless b/c you can switch their meanings anytime your faith is in danger of refutation). No, I'm not arguing a strawman. YOU are spinning and rationalizing with confirmation bias b/c you assumed your theology at the outset and are now trying to work backwards with a closed-mind.

Standing by and watching while murder takes place is not just allowing everyone to die (naturally). Boy you tell yourself a whole lotta BS don't you.

Since death is not the end and God restores all life, He is not obligated to stop murder.

Did God ever say that He would stop everything bad in the fallen world? No, not until Heaven. You're arguing a strawman.

What a convenient rationalization (and yet weak attempt) to keep believing it's 'moral' for your alleged God to refuse to intervene when a child is being raped or murdered (for example). So you think such a thing is moral for your alleged 'God' and yet it's immoral if YOU refused to step in and stop such heinous acts. Utter hypocrisy. You are more moral than your SPAG god that you worship inside you're head and you just haven't realized it yet.

On a second note, I don't believe "God" (whatever the heck that word means) ever 'did' anything, b/c I reject your notion of such a thing. But since you believe your theology regarding this 'thing', your arguments are irrational. You can't have it both ways. Either the terms "love" and "moral" actually have useful meaning (at which case your God is not loving/moral) or they are just a tautology for you to keep your theology (at which case those terms are meaningless b/c you can switch their meanings anytime your faith is in danger of refutation). No, I'm not arguing a strawman. YOU are spinning and rationalizing with confirmation bias b/c you assumed your theology at the outset and are now trying to work backwards with a closed-mind.

No, humans God have different roles. Just like the cops can hold people in prison but you can't build a cell in your basement and keep a criminal in there. The cops will punish YOU for that as well. Shouting, "but it's moral when you guys put people in cells!" won't help you nor is it hypocritical.

Logged

Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

And this is where the fallacy of equivocation comes. You "SEE" this alleged 'God' doing what, how? Do you actually "SEE", like seeing a family member, seeing the waves at the beach, or seeing an apple on a tree?? I can just hear the vague utterances, back pedaling, and equivocations now.

An argument from ignorance doesn't mean that thing you talk to in your head did anything. What you are doing is called LEADING the evidence, instead of following it (and that is b/c of your confirmation bias).

No, humans God have different roles. Just like the cops can hold people in prison but you can't build a cell in your basement and keep a criminal in there. The cops will punish YOU for that as well. Shouting, "but it's moral when you guys put people in cells!" won't help you nor is it hypocritical.

I'm glad that you've chosen to attempt this line of faulty reasoning. Are you now willing to admit, then, that God's alleged "nature" is NOT the standard of morality since this alleged God can violate it's own rules (i.e. - it's own nature)?

Btw, judges, police officers, and subjects are NOT held to two different standards of morality. So you have a false dichotomy here. Both judges AND non-judges would be immoral for (for example) torturing children with fire. However, what a non-law enforcement official (a citizen) does is NOT based upon what a judge is or does. So again, do you admit that our morality does NOT come from this 'judge' you call God b/c this thing violates it's own rules according to you?

You can't have it both ways. Either this 'nature' is the standard of morality or it is not.

Or how about all the babies that God gets killed? Certainly not pro life.

We've been over this. God allows everyone to die. Is God evil for allowing everyone to die?

I shall be dying on my own terms, thank you. I don't need your fake god to walk me through the process. Nor do I need his permission.

I don't suppose you have any idea how boring it is to keep hearing about your god, who could do anything if he wanted, but who does nothing, except when you need to think you're proving a point. Then he comes in handy for you. Except he isn't real, which makes you sound quite silly.

Not that we're laughing, though...

Please tell me how you know that God is doing nothing.

I see God doing things every single day of my life.

I don't see god doing things every single day of my life. I haven't seen him do one thing on one day of my life. And to top it off, he isn't real anyway, so my experience isn't likely to change.

I've no idea what you're interpreting as the work of your god. Dustbunnies? Static on your TV? Those little floaty things in your eyes? Hey, I dunno, but you're not being very specific. I'd ask you to clarify, but everyone else would laugh at me for being stupid enough to ask. So never mind.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

God killed all the first born Egyptian kids if their parents didn't put sheep blood on their door, that's crazy.I want to see a thrust defend that.

This has been explained countless times. The blood represented an innocent sacrifice, foreshadowing Jesus and his sacrifice.

It's not just "something stupid" thrown into the Bible. It has a meaning and purpose.

You sound pretty sure that the death of jesus wasn't foreshadowing your own demise, as yet another sacrifice for the big guy. You know, the one he hasn't told you about yet. But don't worry. They'll tell great stories about you in Bible, Volume II.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.